Wednesday, December 01, 2010

COD? What COD?


The naval variant of the military’s fighter jet of the future arrived at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., on Nov. 6, a development that means the Navy and its industry partners are satisfied that the jet can safely perform basic flight maneuvers and is ready to tackle more demanding tests.

Behind the scenes, however, the Navy is struggling to remedy a significant design oversight that poses a major potential hindrance to its ability to successfully deploy and maintain the F-35C Lightning II, the carrier-based variant of the joint strike fighter: Its powerful single engine, when packed for shipping, is too large to be transported to sea by normal means when replacements are required.

“That is a huge challenge that we currently have right now,” said Capt. Chris Kennedy of the JSF Program Office, answering a flier’s question about JSF engine resupply following a public presentation on the state of the program at the 2010 Tailhook Symposium in September in Reno, Nev. He said the program office is working with the Navy staff and carrier systems planners to solve the problem.
Really? Really? The program is simply too far down the road to do anything but try to find a work around ... but an interesting forensics question would be the how and why we have reached this point of the program when someone asked, "So, what are the tie down and CG considerations for COD'n this out to the boat?" ... and the answer was, "What is a COD?"

From the cheap seats here, it looks like no one listened to or invited on the team anyone from the Aviation Maintenance side of the house, CVN AIMD in particular. On the USN/USMC side of the program team, who were the 13XX post-Command personnel in the loop? When, how, and why was this requirement defined, prioritized, and addressed?

This really can't be something that was just thought of, could it? If at sometime it was decided that this need was not essential - who made that decision and why?

Is this another case of Jointicitis, r.e. ACS, where we could be spending a dollar in the long run to save a quarter now ... again.


Let me try to find the positive angle on this. This might be a good excuse to bring back a discussion of the Common Support Aircraft. We need a non-FA-18 based organic tanker and we need spare engines - use that as the basis for the discussion. Go evolutionary not revolutionary with a fly-off like was done with the F-16/17 & F-22/23. Replacement for E-2D at some time down the road should be able to piggy-back on the result.


Either that or we can accept lower strike sorties due to unnecessarily NMCS aircraft, and parasitic buddy-tanking.

Oh, let me help our our buddy Galrahn --- accountability?

65 comments:

LT B said...

They never considered it because they were busy drafting ways to make the CF-18 COD version that drops pallets like bombes onto the flight deck.  :)   LOTTA F-18 Love in the Navy.

highpockts said...

So soon we forget....  Had the same problem with the S-3 (built up: Quick Engine Change kit) didn't fit the C-2 however no problem for the H-53..   Once upon a time Maintainers had a seat at the table but apparently have been elbowed out of the way by the many "Face Timers"

LT B said...

Which leads to face-palm.

Skippy-san said...

Actually-very few engines are moved by COD anymore. The only one that will even fit is the engine in an H-60. Every other engine moves to the carrier via CONREP.

The real issue with engine movement is not moving the engine the "final mile" so to speak-it is getting it from the AIMD that is doing the build-up. EVERY USN aircraft engine has to move via USAF wide body heavy lift. It cannot be FEDEX'ed or DHL due to current rules on how much weight can be shipped via commercial air. Since the US Navy also pulled out most of its overseas engine build-up capability ( Thanks-Black Nathman!) they have to come from CONUS and inventories have to be maintained in theater at supply points like Bahrain. The dirty little secret AMC does not like to advertise is that it only averages a 68% on time rate for channel supply missions. And if you are moving a big engine like a T-56 ( E-2/C-2) via a C-5, it gets even worse.

We did move am H-60 one time in a C-12 to the PI once. That was pretty sporting getting it there.

ewok40k said...

makes me remeber Brit strikes against P.Stanley - 9 Vulcans to make one reach target...

CDR Salamander said...

.... so a non-issue?  If it is a non-issue, then why are they sweating a load over it now?

Salty Gator said...

Issue:  standard palleting will not work to move via CONREP either.  And concern about ripping the spanwire out.  This thing is a goat rope.

The maintenance team was invited late to the party; however, the problem REALLY is that this platform suffers from F-111 syndrome:  trying to be too many things to too many people.  There is a reason that the AF chose the F-16, the Navy chose the F-18.  different requirements.  Instead, we're taking an air force requirement and trying to "marinize it" to fit onto our ships.  Good luck.

Here is the real issue though with respect to maintenance.  How do you execute an engine change out on an LHD?  You have not even 1/2 the hangar space as an LHA-6 (with no well deck).  What do you do if you have a hangar queen?  The logistics are mind boggling.  We're back to playing with NO BENCH just like we do with "optimal manning."  We'll call this "optimal logistics."  And just HOPE and PRAY that your reachback system is working properly, else you won't be able to get the help you need or the contractor fly away team since this plane is so ridiculously difficult to fix, most maintenance and repair work cannot be accomplished by SHIPFOR or AIRDET.

M. Ittleschmerz said...

But, we have a LONG history of this...

M1A1 too heavy for the LCAC...LCAC came first, but gets blamed because it can't carry the extra weight.
HMMVW wouldn't fit up the ramp on LHD1...LHD came first but the ramp design gets blamed.
MV22 blisters flight decks...and the amphibs take the grief (and heat, though some does get revisited on the Osprey)
And so on and so forth...

We have constraints other than money...but that appears to be the only constraint that we actually talk about.  Square, cube, electrical load (ashore and afloat) matter, yet we only pay lipservice to "total ownership cost" and rig the numbers to make the briefs palatable.

rexbob said...

Concur with Skippy.  Circa 1987 we looked at putting AV8's on Midway to help with Beartrap (Midway had a roll, could not launch F4's in certain seas).  AV8's Engine is huge!!  Biggest show stopper was the deck space required for an engine change (lots of PSE).  Brigthside, with the current diplomacy we will be bluewater ops only.  Also, the cost of these planes will drive less a/c per carrier and deck space will not be a problem.

Anonymous said...

No, LT, more like a Double Face Palm:
http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu131/KevlarPaperclip/double-facepalm.jpg

Cdr Ashore said...

As I read the report, it said that the container does fit into a COD but not on the current pallet/dolly system.  I add to Skippy's comments, I think this is a non-issue being piled on to a troubled program.  

"<span>A low-profile rail system would allow the engine — which by itself is not too large for the cargo doors of the COD, the MH-53E or the V-22 — or its modules to slide off the trailer and into the aircraft, Mueller said. A separate maintenance transfer trailer would be needed on the carrier for the transferred engine."</span>

And as to picking a fight between 13XX's and black shoes, maybe if the black shoe navy would acknowledge that a SWO tour on a carrier isn't a wasted equivalent of a year at air war college there would be a logistics-savvy SWO at the table to make the JSF much more like the wildly successful LPD program.
;)

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Another embarrassing gaffe.

A low profile rail system might be easier said then done.  Don't forget to spec to carry unevenly distributed weight as you shift from rail to cart. Aircraft CG might be the next show stopper.

"Amateurs worry about tactics, professional worry about logistics."

 Why? You will cease tactics when the logistics fail.  " For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of the shoe the horse was lost, for want of the horse the rider was lost, for want of the rider the message was lost, for want of the message the battle was lost...... and all for the want of one horseshoe nail."

Which just goes to show this is a known issue since Knox was Chief of Artillery.

Question.  Why is "amateurish" part of best fitted these days? It must be, given the number of high level rookie screwups going on. It's like nobody every heard of the law of the 7 P's.

ICFBI.  IAWYK, IWYB.  Total Gilbert and Sullivan.  And Goldwater-Nichols.

Skippy-san said...

I agree-the width of the engine and its weight is a real problem. Its a big ass engine.

Anonymous said...

We need CSA...for ASW, if for nothing else.

The information I heard was that CSA was killed by the E-2 community...who had themselves a war with the S-3 community as nasty (if quieter) as the F-18/F-14 fight.  The VS community lost...and so did the Navy.

The Platform Wars of the 1990s crippled Naval Aviation.  And I don't know if it can be healed.

Charley A. said...

In the press reports  I read, the engine transport container is too large to fit through the cargo doors of the C-2 and MV-22.  The largest module of a disassembled F135 can, sans container, which would require a new way of securing and protecting the engine in the cargo bay.   A MV-22 or MH-53 can sling load the engine, although there are concerns about range, and in the case of the MV-22, the danger of rotor wash to deck crew.

Anywho, could one of the reasons this happened is because Lockheed Martin hasn't designed a carrier aircraft since the S-3?

Skippy-san said...

Guest,

   That is not the whole story. The simple fact was that the spec's on the proposed Locheed CSA design ( with the triangle dome) did not come close to what was already in work on the E-2D radar. Furthermore-the S-3 based design left little room for expansion of sensor capability for other mission areas (especially in terms of the ESM suite). There was some community parochialism at work, to the E-2 community's discredit, but it there were primarily some valid technical issues that Locheed did not do a good job of overcoming. AEW is not just taking an airplane and throwing a dome on it.

Anonymous said...

Well sounds like a reason to keep the Osprey around. Is that cargo area bigger than the current COD?

The Osprey should have the range with air refueling and does not need to trap on the carrier, just land like a helocopter.

sid said...

According to the article, the F135 engine is too big to be moved by CONREP as well...

sid said...

The S-3 was originally sized to fit on the Essex CVS's...

It would have been bigger if it hadn't had to meet that size constraint.

Spade said...

You could also say that the Navy hasn't really been involved in a succesful "from the ground up" carrier aircraft design since the '70s.

sid said...

Take a read of this oral history for a chronicle of the period when Nav Air design acumen fell off the rails in the 1970's...

The current travails in NAVSEA sound too sadly familiar.

sid said...

The above was a reply to this:

<span>You could also say that the Navy hasn't really been involved in a succesful "from the ground up" carrier aircraft design since the '70s.</span>

sid said...

part 3 of George Spangenberg's oral history linked above talks extensively about these aircraft types...

On the whole the S-3 then turned out to be a good program. We had some flying quality problems basically because the airplane in order to meet the long time endurance requirement had to have a lot of span and then it had too little drag in the landing approach condition. That was probably the major flying quality problem then, getting enough drag on the airplane so it would get down on the deck.
Then, ironically, of all those modified airplane versions which we'd been forced to show before we were allowed to proceed, none were approved. OSD forced the Navy to accept inferior solutions to both tanker and COD mods.
Looking back at the time the requirements were started it would have been easier to do a COD version of the airplane for example if we'd had a little more space in the original airplane. When the requirements were established, however, we still had the CVS class carriers with older and less powerful catapult and arresting gear. By the time we actually got the airplane in service of course the CVSs were long gone. Well enough for the S-3 program. I believe Lockheed delivered the 200 aircraft called for in the contract under the fixed price ceilings specified. A successful program in my mind despite OSD.

Eric Palmer said...

Gee, another suprise for the Joint Strike Failure.

I see.... I see.... 

I see a carrier air wing in the 2020s with only 2 squadrons of Super Hornets in it for fast jets because of the Just So Farcial dying and classic Hornets being retired.

FPK said...

My job gives me some opportunity for "inside baseball" moments.  A year or so back a pentagon friend with inside knowledge shared with me that Lockheed Martin had come to the Navy with a design question.  They wanted to know just how important it was to the carrier version of the F-35 had foldable wings... Was that really that important?  The reply... have you ever been on a carrier? 

The fact that the engine doesn't fit on a COD is really, well... not surprising...

Retired Now said...

USN has been flying our carrier based fighters over Iraq and now Afgahistan since the first GULF WAR in 1991.     Have read lots of reports by Navy carrier pilots of their typical long flights from CVN into Iraq / Afghan and return to CVN.    Navy pilots sometimes fly for over 5 hours on these missions and if it wasn't for huge, land based USAF aireal tankers,  the CVN air wing could not support these long distance inland air missions.

Given that the US Air Force has been attempting to award new heavy airborne tanker contracts for the past decade and a half,  with no success,  the USN's CVN air wing might be a great danger of becoming OBE.   Just no way for any CVN based tankers to support F-18's flying all the way into AFGHAN and returning, day in and day out.    The Navy needs to push the Air Force to hurry up and start buying brand new long range, heavy airborne tankers.    And IF the USAF can ever award such a KC-xx tanker contract,  they better hope Congress will fund more than just a half dozen of these per year.    America needs a replacement fleet of monsterous Air Force tankers right away.  

xbradtc said...

The Navy OUGHT to buy some used 737s, pop a tanker drogue in the back, and fly them. 

Anonymous said...

Doesn't surprise me.  Lockheed isn't a builder of carrier aircraft.  It's why they were teamed with Vought on the S-3.

ShawnP said...

Does this suprise anyone after a decade of LCS, LPD-17, DDG-1000 and so many failed platforms to numerous to mention. We have lost our way shipmates and have run hard aground with only ourselves to blame for the poor navigation.

Southern Air Pirate said...

I guess this is another lost decade fiasco. The powers to be knew there was a requirement to replace not only the E-2 but also the C-2 and the S-3. The Common Support Aircraft, wasn't a player not only from knifes in the back from both the S-3 and the E-2/C-2 community; but also cause the NAVAIRSYSCOM couldn't design a paperbag without not only over engineering it, but also putting unrealistic requirements into the contract.

Boss you wonder why no one from S-6/ASD was invited? Nor, was anyone from the 1520 community; simply cause the AMDO's aren't viewed as "real officers" by some of the aviators that are in HMFIC's in NAVAIRSYSCOM. If that sounds rough, well that is the honesty of what I have seen from my deck edge view of the O's Mess in some squadrons and even at the AIMD level. Even worse is most of the AMDO's are LDO/CWO's and aren't viewed as intelligent enough to give up intelligent responses. It is a damn shame, but most of these AMDO's would have waved the BS flag early and often in attempts to prevent this. The other problem is some of the advisors that have been hired seem to have been all blue suit zommies. No one with experience in Naval Aviation and the challenges that are typical here. Like having to share deck space and SE with others, let alone tyring to fit your spares on a COD.

Salty Gator said...

or the unforgettable "Tactical Facepalm"

Ken Adams said...

Strange question, considering that there's at least one retired CAG that I know working in Fort Worth.

Salty Gator said...

testing out new avatars...right now I'm stuck between the old "Rock" one and Sam the Eagle.  I'm leaning towards Sam the Eagle for now...

Southern Air Pirate said...

At the Stoof was designed to fit on the old Casablanca class carriers. However, when both planes hit the fleet after thier development the ships they were supposed to serve on couldn't handle the aircraft.

The lost decade in US Naval Aviation actually began in 1989 when then SecDef Cheney started to slice and dice the budget as part of the "Peace Dividend". Remember that we were supposed to have an V-22 flying from carriers as part of a multi-service buy, F-14D's thorugh out the fleet until VF/X arrived, A-6F/G's holding the line until the A-12 Avenger II came on line, CSA was supposed to be coming down the pipeline to replace three platforms at once (the E-2, C-2, S-3). Also in the plans at BuAir/NAVAIRSYSCOM/WHATEVER flag billet, was replacement of the MH-53 with a new platform (such as the V-22), H-3 replacement with the H-60F, H-46 with either V-22 or some other vertical platform, P-3 with the P-7, Isreali designed UAV's with some improved US designed UAV's, AIM-54 replaced with an Advanced long-range AAM, Sparrow replacement with AMRAAM, Sidewinder replacement with ASRAAM and AIM-9R, HARM replacement with AARM, JSOW/JDAM to replace older Bullpup/Maverick/older LGB's, Nighthawk and other FLIR pods with new targeting pods; the list goes on. There was a serious attempt to upgrade a number of platforms, weapons, and sensor suites that were thought of in the late 60's, prototyped in the 70's and arrived to the fleet in the 80's with even better from the application of Moore's Law in electronics.

PK said...

just remember gang the 579th law of buisiness (with the govern ment) is

"In confusion there is profit."

we've all seen decisions in procurement and other areas where something came up just when it was to late to recover efficiently that caused massive cost overruns. it makes the head man look dumb but lines someones pocket quite well.

C

Southern Air Pirate said...

Not going to happen. There was an honest attempt by the bubbas on the carrier aviation side to have the PMA for the P-8 add on some wingtip drogue units to help tank some escorting fighters (like what you might need to defend an ELINT bird from a photo hungry ChiCom pilot). The PMA threw up his hands in a crossed arm signal for not only No but hell NO. In the end we need not only off-site tanker support but better air wing organic tanker support.

Although the F-18E/F has pretty good give when compared to a S-3, according to some of the numbers that I have seen it pales in comparision to both the KA-3 and the KA-6 in both amount of gas carried but also fuel effiency to get on to Texaco Station. Right now we are doing a yo-yo tanker about every other launch to help support the strike package going out. A yo-yo tanker is an addtional tanker specifically launched to provide additional gas for either the returning birds or the out going birds. In the F-14/A-6/A-7 air wing a yo-yo was used only when doing those max range RIPSAW fleet defense missions or a long range strike (like maybe sitting off Scily and launching a strike package into a NATO range in Turkey. Now even when we were in the PG and putting packages into the OIF missions it seemed to me that there would be a double launch of tankers from the E/F bubbas (with a pair of turning spares) usually on the even events for the day. I would also say it was pretty depressing to see a Fighter Attack Guy with a Top Gun patch on his shoulder walk out to pre-flight his tanker bird all the while doing a big old Charlie Brown sigh at every panel.

sid said...

Guest is pretty much right about the S-3 Ken,

Take the time to delve into part 3 of Spangenberg's oral history I've linked above...

We were lucky in that Lockheed came up to be first in the air frame part of the competition as well as first in the ASW system part so we didn't have any problem in determining the winner. Well, the business of Lockheed ending up as number one for a carrier-based airplane I think startled some people. It certainly wouldn't have happened if they had not had Vought as a partner. It was a teamed arrangement. <span>Watching the preliminary design studies of Lockheed's over the years for carrier-based designs I believed that they would never win a competition by themselves because of a lack of experience in that field. As soon as they signed up Vought and Vought started doing the airplane part of the game they became much more competitive. Vought of course had a long background in carrier-based airplanes....</span>

sid said...

<span>However, when both planes hit the fleet after thier development the ships they were supposed to serve on couldn't handle the aircraft.  </span>

In the case of the S-3 that is incorrect (not sure about the Casablancas and gthe Stoof will have to dig on that one...)


In fact, the Essex's were all decommissioned before the S-3 came on line. It actually hit the fleet as the idea of the CV concept was spooling up, and the USN moved away from the CVA attack only decks.

They didn't fit on the Midways because there wasn't space for the support equipment in those very crowded, very subdivided boats.

sid said...

<span>In fact, the Essex's were all decommissioned before the S-3 came on line.</span>

CVS's anyway.

Friedman has a good synopsis in his US Carriers

Anonymous said...

Good thing the E-2 and C-2 engines can be brought aboard by COD.  Oh, wait... they can't.

sid said...

But they CAN be CONREPed...

AW1 Tim said...

I've got it! Just design a specially delivery module for the LCS and let it be the "super-fast" delivery system for the fleet!

It could be like a seagoing FedEx system!  Woot!  8-) /sarc

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Wow!  An actual purpose for the LCS!

SCOTTtheBADGER said...

Yes, Sam works well.

Anonymous said...

too bad NAVAIR neutered the E-2 D's radar.   Now, it is in a politically correct frequency band so that all the world's governments and businesses are going to be pleased whenever an E-2 D flies near them.   Never mind that the trusty old E-2 C has one of those old, reliable frequency radars than detect the LO stealthy type aircraft, like F-22 and F-35.     But the new E-2 D radar will be great for future wargames which will "prove" the value of all those ridiculously overpriced fighters.    Yes, it's true.   Coming soon to an aircraft carrier wing near you:  E-2 D.   Sees everything accurately (except the LO Stealthy things).  Maybe the Navy will retain some of the older E-2 C and fly a mixed bag onboard all our CVN's ?   Save the veneralble E-2 C with her ancient low frequency radar just in case some country manages to build their own LO Stealthy aircraft.   It's funny, but the USAF built the stealthy B-2 bombers that can only be detected with ancient low freq technology radars, like the old sensors used by Russia and the E-2 C aircraft.   So, quit your complaining about LCS/LPD/DDG-1000 and add the E-2 D to your repetoire.    Rule of physics (unclass):  the lower the frequency of your radar, the better it can defeat the stealthy features of aircraft. 

USAF Mike said...

Had the pleasure of attending a USAF Mx course last summer that was taught in part by a USN LDO AMDO.  A portion of the course was compare/contrast between the ways the AF and Navy do business as far as aircraft maintenance is concerned...some of the differences seemed to make sense (AF has separate AMMO and Loader career fields where the Navy rolls it all into AO, for example) but the way the Navy's overall maintenance structure was set up seemed to be a bit off.  Y'all seem to give the operators a LOT more pull than we do, and I got a hint from him of the whole "third class citizen" thing regarding LDO AMDOs, which seems to me to be an absolute travesty.

I can't guarantee that we wouldn't make a similar stupid mistake in a program (I think our recent acquisitions record speaks for itself...unfortunately) but I can say it wouldn't be due to a lack of involvement from maintenance.  Maintainers are intimately involved with all aspects of any given aircraft procurement.  There will always be growing pains, but one would hope it would at least prevent an issue as glaring as this. 

Can't say anything about us knowing about NA specific issues...too busy trying to figure out what to do with all this open tarmac and more support equipment than I know what to do with.  :-p

Salty Gator said...

fits my optimistic porch persona

Skippy-san said...

I'd say you have your facts about the radar pretty backwards-and that is all I am going to say in this forum.

Skippy-san said...

USAF Mike-but that is the difference. The USAF gives the wing too much power and does not let the squadron CO be responsible for everything in his squadron. Maintenance is 80% of what a squadron does. The CO should have ownership of that. For better or worse. Most CO's I know, take care of their AMDO's. Don't forget too-they have paths to command especially now that major AIMD's are commands and CV AIMD's are command equivelants.

sid said...

Wasn't the CSA killed by Adm Natter?

The same one who was most recently championing the LCS in USNI?

sid said...

Also...

Why the emphasis on "Support"?

More of too much Hornet Love goin' on (they're so [falsetto voice] cute!)


Arguably the best "common" airframe in Naval Aviation was in fact a full up warbird...

Most folks only remember the "support" variants -which were many.

That big ole bombay could translate into some very useful volume (like carrying one CO's MG sportster across CONUS.

And, as related by SAP, was still fast enough to evade fighters in El Dorado Canyon.

The trailing aircraft in the formation here was not a purpose converted "K" bird,(they came later), but was instead carrying a hose and drogue pod.

Sure is a shame nothing on the decks today can carry a bombload (~10,000 lbs) out as far as that gaggle (>1000nm) could a half century plus ago.

How much less of a reliance of landbased tanking and ISR would that translate into?

P.S. Bet few know there was even a AEW variant proposed at one point as well.

Stu said...

How about and AIMD module that just follows the Big Deck around?

Stu said...

How about an AIMD module that follows the Big Deck around?

Stu said...

I've seen nothing but respect given to our AMDO LDOs in the squadrons.  Most are solid guys.

Stu said...

"As president of R. J. Natter & Associates, LLC (a firm that advises multiple defense firms), and the director for Advanced Concepts for Lockheed Martin Integrated Defense Technologies..."
-----------------------
He lost me already (and I used to work for him).

Byron said...

Gotta throw the BS flag on that one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation

Southern Air Pirate said...

Stu most of the AMDO's are good guys. They are the SME's on how to live and die by the NAMP. THere are some though that live in the five sided wind tunnel and over in Crystal City for NAVAIRSYSCOM who don't completely understand that. So they depend on the engineers to tell them the truth. Rather then depending on the SME's who have worked on around the fleet and understand the issues of trying to move parts from CONUS to some remote location, arguing why the COD is bring VIP's onboard instead of Pri 1 Parts, understanding how the supply system in general is supposed to work.

Anonymous said...

Concur with Skippy.  Not only wrong about E-2D, but wrong about Radar too.

Anonymous said...

Oh I thought theh "
<span>COD? What COD?" article was about CODs.  My bad.  I guess CONREP, what CONREP is next.</span>

Pablo said...

Pretty sure the engine is too heavy to UNREP from supply ship as well, which is why Heavy UNREP was developed.... but, heavy UNREP capability isn't ready or deployed yet.

Skippy-san said...

SAP, 

  You know what is really sad about the P-8 (737)? When I was in Fallon, some of my JO's put together some really good work showing how the Navy could have saved money on both the C-40 and the EP-3 by buying the 737 in volume and using some of the airframes as an EP-3 like airframe. Our admiral was for it-and even tried to pitch it to N-88. However the opposition from the P-3 community was brutal. They came on a witch hunt for the JO's who were from the EP-3 community and they all had to keep a very low profile for about eight months. 

Southern Air Pirate said...

Skippy-San,

Does it suprise you? Really, you have been around the pro-am knife throwers in the community longer then I have. However, I have heard the horror stories espcially from the poor guys who were in a "sundowing" platform that trying to surive against the winners get thier wickets in a row to rise. A few have decided the grass was greener on the outside and drop out of the game.

Skippy-san said...

If you want to see an example of a community bloodbath-go back and look at how the A-6 was sundowned. It was a crime-Naval Aviation through a whole bunch of really good guys on the wood pile. A lot of them should have been moved to the Hornet community-but were not.

Stu said...

SAP,

I should have been more clear.  I'm not surprised by some in the upper echelons not taking advice from the AMDOs (especially the LDOs).  But within the squadrons, I never saw such disdain.  They were part of the team both at work and at the club.   

Casey Tompkins said...

Looks good. Have you considered changing your nic to Salty Gator Eagle? :-D